That's the part I have trouble with. Yes they're positioning Thanos to pwn in Avengers 2, but then how does he figure into the third film, or are we seriously considering that Avengers was not planned as a trilogy, or that the last film in the trilogy will not be propelled by Thanos like the first two?

I think there's a major story to be told between him finding out one of his peripheral plans involves the humans and personally coming to stomp some heads.

The only way this works is if they are in fact just not giving a **** about trilogies and what not and more or less everyone is going to crossover at some point in the MCU in various flicks or tv shows. They may fight Thanos now, in some future movie they may do the Secret War for all we know, etc. It bounces around between big spectacle and more reserved from movie to movie.

__________________
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses. - Henry Ford
-----------
Who the **** makes a movie and while planning it is like, "you know what this needs...is some Greg Kinnear."

I just think the character of Thanos is too great to stuff into only one film. That's why I'd like to see the situation with him evolve over the 2nd and 3rd Avengers. I don't want another Red Skull situation.

I just think the character of Thanos is too great to stuff into only one film. That's why I'd like to see the situation with him evolve over the 2nd and 3rd Avengers. I don't want another Red Skull situation.

People think that about a lot of characters. Luckily films are pushing 3 hours these days (in some cases split into two parts) and if thats all we get, it could be sufficient.

Joker only got one film and I think he was done a certain amount of justice. Sure he didnt really have a chance to reprise the role, but he did what he needed to do.

plus you don't think Red Skull will be back? If he's not pulling Bucky's strings, I expect he's bound to be in Cap 3.

Outside of Pym Ultron has no more of a personal connection to the characters than Thanos does. Actually Thanos has been screwing around with Loki, attempting to obtain the cosmic cube, and unleashed an army on the Earth, so his personal connection to the heroes is already greater.

Having Thanos "give the villain a push" in two straight Avengers movies is kind of weaksauce. Everything, especially Marvel greenlighting a Guardians of the Galaxy movie (risky!), the first film's tag, and Whedon's love for the character, points to Thanos as the full-on villain for the Avengers sequel. You can only tease something for so long without the audience getting fed up with it

Absolutely spot on.

Also, the introduction of Ultron rests almost entirely on Edgar Wright finally getting off his ass and moving forward on Ant-Man. Whether EW wants to introduce Hank Pym to the Avengers, whether or not Janet Van Dyne actually exists in the MCU, whether or not Hank Pym does or does not manufacture Ultron, it's all up in the air until we get something solid from the Ant-Man movie.

There's no way in hell Joss Whedon is making Avengers 2 focus on a character(s) who may or may not even be introduced in the Edgar Wright movie before 2015.

Look for Ultron to be TA3 material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OB12

I disagree. Thanos has no real personal connection to any of the Avengers, they don't even know that he exists and even if they did he would be just another villian. Aside from the obvious Pym connection, Ultron could pose some unique questions or challenges for both Stark and Thor.

Thanos *does* have a personal connection to Thor's story, through Loki. Even if we don't catch a glimpse of Thanos in Thor: The Dark World, I'm positive Loki will at least reveal to Thor and Odin who gave him the Chitauri and the Sceptre, and what he (Thanos) wanted in return.

I still believe Thanos, or at least The Other, has a cameo in TDW to resolve the "there is no place you can hide, Loki" threat from Avengers; but even if there's not an actual visual, I believe Thanos will finally be referenced by name, and Loki will offer a very brief intro to the character.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

That's the part I have trouble with. Yes they're positioning Thanos to pwn in Avengers 2, but then how does he figure into the third film, or are we seriously considering that Avengers was not planned as a trilogy, or that the last film in the trilogy will not be propelled by Thanos like the first two?

I think there's a major story to be told between him finding out one of his peripheral plans involves the humans and personally coming to stomp some heads.

I think more than a few of us have said all along that Avengers is not being set up as a trilogy....

Loki was more or less Thanos' pawn. He has a bigger agenda on his plate, hence The Others' talk of "greater worlds." He only wanted Loki to take care of the Tesseract business and test out the Chitauri against Earth, who he thought may be an easy conquer. He's planning on doing **** to the entire galaxy, if not the universe, so the storyline and cast of heroes/villains is defintely going to expand over the next few years in various flicks.

__________________
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses. - Henry Ford
-----------
Who the **** makes a movie and while planning it is like, "you know what this needs...is some Greg Kinnear."

The exact trajectory of where Thanos goes from here isn't entirely known, but most fans feel it's all but certain that the Mad Titan will appear in "Guardians of the Galaxy," going on to serve as the major villain of Joss Whedon's "Avengers" sequel. Feige's lips are sealed when it comes to the particulars, but he's quick to add that there is a very clear plan in place for Thanos' next appearance.

"Clearly, there's a purpose to us putting him in the end of that movie. We do have plans for him," said Feige. "I wouldn't say we ever feel the need to rush anything one way or the other. We succeeded in Phase One because we stuck to our guns and stuck to the plan. That plan took place over many, many years and it ultimately paid off. I see Phase Two unfolding in the same way of us taking our time, us doing what's right for each individual movie, while folding in elements that will not only build up to the culmination of Phase Two, but even Phase Three."

So this seems to indicate just what I was saying. Thanos is most likely going to play a big part in Phase 2, featuring in GOTG and having a somewhat substantial part in Avengers 2, but his story most likely won't be completed until Avengers 3.

So this seems to indicate just what I was saying. Thanos is most likely going to play a big part in Phase 2, featuring in GOTG and having a somewhat substantial part in Avengers 2, but his story most likely won't be completed until Avengers 3.

That's my understanding. He's basically saying what's building in Phase II will continue to play out into Phase III.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I think more than a few of us have said all along that Avengers is not being set up as a trilogy....

Ah... I do remember that argument now. So, the Thanos Duology, then an third Avengers film unrelated to Thanos, then recasts, basically?

That's my understanding. He's basically saying what's building in Phase II will continue to play out into Phase III.

Ah... I do remember that argument now. So, the Thanos Duology, then an third Avengers film unrelated to Thanos, then recasts, basically?

Only if recasts are necessary. By the time Avengers 3 rolls out, some of the players may opt to stay with this gravy train for as long as it's still running. If TA2 and TA3 rake in another billion plus at the box office, I'd think some contract renegotiations might be in order.

As for Thanos, I still think we'll get at least a hint of him in Thor TDW next year. Maybe not an actual cameo, but I'd be willing to bet copious amounts of money that The Other will be there, and we'll get an introductory backstory on The Mad Titan, that will be further fleshed out in GOTG.

If they make a trilogy and go from Thanos in Avengers 2 to Ultron or Civil war in Avengers 3 i think it's kind of a weak way to end it, i know they're going to make this series never ending like the bond films, but if Avengers 3 is the last with most of these actors and the ending of this storyline then going wasting Thanos in the middle film is a bad idea.

They can try to make the next storylines more urban but if they're going to go cosmic with this one then it needs to end big.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by childeroland

Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?

They can go from Thanos in Avengers 2 to Thanos with the full infinity gauntlet in Avengers 3.

That would be boring. It's better to see him get the full infinity gauntlet at the end of one film instead of just bringing him back for an encore for another where the Avengers have to fight him yet again. It's different to Loki in Thor and in the Avengers, because he hadn't tangled with all of them yet.

Having Thanos just getting an upgrade is like having Spider-Man 1 where he fights the Green Goblin, and then Spider-Man 2 where the Green Goblin comes back from the dead with a more advanced armour. Sure some might like to see the upgrades, but it's still the same villain all over again. I prefer to see someone fresh and different. You can do it in a TV series after a number of episodes, but for a film it gets repetitive.

__________________

Quote:

Anne Hathaway: "You did not just ask me that!! What a forward young man you are!!! My goodness!!"

Like that boring time Darth Vader was the villain in three straight movies

Avengers isn't Star Wars. With Marvel comics you expect to see different villains each time round. For Star Wars, Darth Vader is really the only villain. The Avengers have many other villains in their rogues gallery. Repeating Thanos as the main villain each time that they battle just means preventing another villain from taking centre stage.

__________________

Quote:

Anne Hathaway: "You did not just ask me that!! What a forward young man you are!!! My goodness!!"

Or it means developing a character beyond the routine "try to do something eeevil, fight hero(es), lose"

It's not repetitive to tell two different stories featuring the same villain. And it makes a lot more structural sense, in terms of the movies they have made and are making, to build up to a grand finale featuring Thanos. Instead of killing him off swiftly to make room for Ultron or Kang or whoever to take center stage for a flick. Before The Big Recast®

I agree with Dark Raven. Bringing Thanos back again and again is going to get old real quick. Jim Starlin has already said that the Big Guy is in both GOTG and TA2, and he'll probably have at least a presence in Thor 2, and *if* they're planning on keeping him around 'til TA3 in, what, 2018-2019 possibly? And consider that they'd have to keep his character "warm" through the rest of Phase III leading up to the "rematch"....

....good gawd. Nobody wants this to turn into the Thanos Show in perpetuity....not even me.

I think Thanos will have plenty of face time over the next few Phase II films, and TA2 will be a fitting "culmination," as Feige says. Not necessarily a death (....like Thanos really ever dies, anyway....), but just an ending. Which sets up Phase III.

Quote:

I see Phase Two unfolding in the same way of us taking our time, us doing what's right for each individual movie, while folding in elements that will not only build up to the culmination of Phase Two, but even Phase Three."

....The way I interpret that is that the Thanos story culminates in TA2, but elements of the story plant seeds for Phase III. And I think that some probable seeds from a Thanos story could be time travel via Kang the Conqueror, or the introduction of the Kree and Skrull, leading up to a Mar-Vell/Carol Danvers debut next phase.

Or it means developing a character beyond the routine "try to do something eeevil, fight hero(es), lose"

It's not repetitive to tell two different stories featuring the same villain. And it makes a lot more structural sense, in terms of the movies they have made and are making, to build up to a grand finale featuring Thanos. Instead of killing him off swiftly to make room for Ultron or Kang or whoever to take center stage for a flick. Before The Big Recast®

You can develop him as a presence in one and have him build to a climactic battle in the next, but to keep having the Avengers fight him in both movies (and where he keeps appearing in other MCU films) will not only be boring but will also give the wrong impression that he is Avengers' and Marvel heroes arch enemy.

In the X-Men movies, Magneto kept appearing. Now yes, it did get repetitive, but one could argue that he is their arch enemy so perhaps it was fitting, although I still think they could've had other villains instead of just Stryker as the main one in X2, and only by X:FC did they have Kevin Bacon. With the Avengers, Thanos isn't the villain they are fighting all the time. He isn't really their Dr Doom to the Fantastic Four. He is a big villain, yes, but the Avengers' arch enemies are really Ultron and Kang. I don't want to perpetually have Thanos at the expense of those two.

__________________

Quote:

Anne Hathaway: "You did not just ask me that!! What a forward young man you are!!! My goodness!!"

Avengers isn't Star Wars. With Marvel comics you expect to see different villains each time round. For Star Wars, Darth Vader is really the only villain. The Avengers have many other villains in their rogues gallery. Repeating Thanos as the main villain each time that they battle just means preventing another villain from taking centre stage.

Speak for yourself.

I prefer a developed story line over a couple different films to allow the villain some depth. Cameos in other stand-alones does not equate to depth.

Seeing Thanos in A2 and then leading into the full on Infinity Gauntlet in A3 would be awesome in my book.

You can develop him as a presence in one and have him build to a climactic battle in the next, but to keep having the Avengers fight him in both movies (and where he keeps appearing in other MCU films) will not only be boring but will also give the wrong impression that he is Avengers' and Marvel heroes arch enemy.

In the X-Men movies, Magneto kept appearing. Now yes, it did get repetitive, but one could argue that he is their arch enemy so perhaps it was fitting, although I still think they could've had other villains instead of just Stryker as the main one in X2, and only by X:FC did they have Kevin Bacon. With the Avengers, Thanos isn't the villain they are fighting all the time. He isn't really their Dr Doom to the Fantastic Four. He is a big villain, yes, but the Avengers' arch enemies are really Ultron and Kang. I don't want to perpetually have Thanos at the expense of those two.

It's not at the "expense" of those two. It's simply in lieu of those two. This isn't the Hank Pym Avengers so Ultron doesn't really have a place yet. And Kang's time travel shtick mucks up and complicates what has so far been a fairly clean narrative.

Two very different movies featuring the same character are less repetitive than two similar movies with similar villains (aka almost every franchise Hollywood has ever churned out, comic book movies included)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock Sexton

Speak for yourself.

I prefer a developed story line over a couple different films to allow the villain some depth. Cameos in other stand-alones does not equate to depth.

Seeing Thanos in A2 and then leading into the full on Infinity Gauntlet in A3 would be awesome in my book.

Hopefully they try to tell the best, most complete story they can with these characters instead of stuffing in every big name character from the comics. (hero or villain)